CVE-2025-63951VulnerabilityPublished 18 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-63951: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on preventing untrusted data from reaching the unserialize() function. This can be achieved by implementing strict input validation and sanitization on the 'rss' GET parameter to ensure only expected, safe data formats are processed. If possible, replace the use of PHP's unserialize() with safer data parsing methods such as JSON decoding, which do not allow object injection. Network-level controls like web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to detect and block suspicious serialized payloads targeting the 'rss' parameter. Restricting access to the vulnerable script to trusted networks or authenticated users can reduce exposure. Monitoring application logs for unusual unserialize() errors or crashes can provide early detection of exploitation attempts. Organizations should track updates from the MiczFlor project for official patches and apply them promptly. For embedded devices, ensure secure firmware update mechanisms are in place to facilitate timely remediation. Finally, conducting security reviews of similar PHP deserialization usage in other projects can prevent analogous vulnerabilities.

Description

CVE-2025-63951 is an insecure deserialization vulnerability in the rss-mp3.php script of the MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID project. The vulnerability arises because the 'rss' GET parameter is passed directly to PHP's unserialize() function without validation, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary PHP objects. This can lead to application errors or denial of service. The vulnerability is remotely exploitable without authentication or user interaction. It has a CVSS score of 7.5 (high severity) with impact on availability only. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. European organizations using this project or similar embedded systems should prioritize patching or mitigating this flaw to prevent service disruption.

Impact

For European organizations using the MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID project or similar embedded systems relying on PHP unserialize() without validation, this vulnerability poses a significant risk of denial of service. Disruption of these jukebox systems could impact environments where they are used for public or commercial audio services, such as retail, hospitality, or cultural institutions. While the vulnerability does not expose sensitive data or allow code execution, the loss of availability can degrade user experience and operational continuity. Additionally, if these systems are integrated into larger IoT or automation frameworks, the DoS could cascade, affecting broader operational technology environments. The lack of authentication and remote exploitability increases the risk profile, especially in network-exposed deployments. European organizations with limited patch management capabilities or those using customized versions of the software may face prolonged exposure. The impact is primarily operational but could have reputational consequences if service outages occur in customer-facing scenarios.

CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Object Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Dec 2025, 21:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-502

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats